MauriceK writes about security in the ZETA operating system. Apparently magnussoft, sole distributor of ZETA, makes security claims [on the German version] that with ZETA "it is not possible to examine a system from the outside without notifying the user due to the architecture of this software."MauriceK seems to think differently, and even gives examples on how code can be executed without the user's knowledge in ZETA. In related news, BeUnited is no more. Instant update: the discussion concerning security just made its appearance on the Haiku m-l.

"And that is something no technology can protect you from: there is no way your OS can tell if the program you just double-clicked is only doing what you think it does or a bit more than just that."

If you take the view that something is impossible, just because no one has ever done it before, you have lost the fight before you even started it. If, however, you "think outside the box", I am almost certain a 100% tamper-proof, hack-proof, virus-proof, and malware-proof OS *can* be designed.

When the particular OS I'm watching gets to a stage where it is "independant", I plan to try and design such an OS, with the help of those willing to believe that "impossible" is simply "possible" that hasn't been tried yet, and can "think different"...

"If, however, you "think outside the box", I am almost certain a 100% tamper-proof, hack-proof, virus-proof, and malware-proof OS *can* be designed. "

Is that like the car that can never crash? Or the stove that never burns your food?
Nothing is 100% proof, if you think that is possible you're beyond help. Honestly.
However, it IS possible, although extremely tedious and in no way foolproof, to prevent applications from touching files they shouldn't touch. On OpeBSD it's called systrace but I can't remember what it's called on other *nixes.
The problem is, how do you know what files an application is supposed to be able to access? Trust that the developer provide you with an accurate list? Use a list from a (more or less) random website? Go to the tedious work of creating it yourself?
As always, security is a tradeoff versus convenience and excessively prompting the user for file access isn't going to make the user happy or productive.

You're NOT "thinking outside the box", Soulbender! You see what exists and what can be extrapolated from what exists and you assume all must follow that course.

I, on the other hand, see things from a different perspective. Not confined by the thought of, "This is 'what is' and this is what can be done with 'what is'... and nothing else exists outside of that!" I think in the realm of "Let's make a system more secure by applying rules and ideas that people haven't tried yet!".

The only 'what is' I'll be using, is the OS itself. I'll be manipulating 'what is' by using 'what isn't'.

Just remember... cars weren't invented by people who only thought the horse and buggy was as fast as you could go. The moon was never visited by people who thought you couldn't get there. Apple wasn't saved by someone who thought the "status quo" was "good enough".

Apple is where they are, today, because one man CAN make a difference... if you just... "think different".

I hope to be able to do likewise... if I can just find a few like-minded individuals willing to push the envelope and do things a little differently than ever before... even if it seems unconventional, silly, or just plain crazy. And especially, if it's believed... "it will never work".